Disqualifications

I haven’t exactly been impressed with Hitchens’ historical sense so far.

Is Hitchens ruling himself out?

Immediately following the 2000 elections Dick Cheney apparently said all the campaign promises were bullshit.

thr, Hitchens is ruled out by that unfair rule about being born a US citizen.

Hitchens has been very even handed. He’s attacked *both* Democratic party candidates. Why would anyone think he’s partisan after that? /irony

Where Hitchens is clearly wrong is where he says “Any of the foregoing _would_ constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.” He clearly means _should_ because, as Shelby says, he knows that several Presidents shared those faults. The one thing I can’t understand is – since so much of his commentary has been vituperative and personal, why he thinks the American political system (which elevated those he’s attacked to office) is wanted abroad? He seems to think it’s a system which consistently delivers the wrong result. As most Americans I’ve met have been well-adjusted and pleasant people without serious material hardship, perhaps who wins the Presidency doesn’t actually matter a damn. It’s certainly not important enough for me to suffer another Hitchens rant.

I thought “subject to fantasies of an illusory past” was more or less a prerequisite for the job, not a disqualification.

I don’t care much for Hitchens and think he was (and still is) an idiot when it comes to Iraq, but when it comes to the Clintons he’s got their number.

Let’s see. Before the war, Hitchens spread the lie that Chalabi was favored by a huge number of Iraqis. He spread the lie that Chirac was opposed to the invasion for various venal reasons, instead of being opposed to it for the very good reason that Iraq, with or without WMD (whatever they are), posed no threat to the U.S. For years, in order to make the invasion of Iraq seem something other than a diversion from the war against al qaeda, he claimed that Osama bin Laden was dead. Recently, he’s written that Iran is developing thermonuclear weaponry – although this doesn’t quite count as a lie, for it turns out that Hitchens thinks ‘thermo” just means very very nuclear weaponry. Ignorance has always been his strong suit.

So as a liar, propagandizing for a liar (Bush), and doing his best to muddy the issues related to the Middle East in order to deny clarity to the citizens who are supposed to pay for and provide the personnel for his favorite wars – I’d say Hitchens has no moral standing. I mean, this is the kind of guy you wouldn’t even trust with jury duty. To put it briefly: he’s an odious pig. Except that that is an insult to the innocent porcine critters out there. No Charlotte will ever write on her web, above the recumbent form of a Hitchens, the phrase: some pig! More likely she’d write: fat enough to eat!

I’m about as unimpressed as I expected to be by Hitchens’s argument.

He basically has three and a half points. The first is that Hillary Clinton lied about the Tuzla airport, which, even if true, is a stupid and trivial gotcha that distracts us from actual policy. The second is criticism of Bill Clinton’s Bosnia policy was very bad, which, even if accurate (and I think it probably is), can’t obviously be laid at Hillary Clinton’s doorstep. They’re different people. The second-and-a-half point is that the Bosnia policy arose from a desire not to distract from Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, which again doesn’t seem like Bill’s fault (I don’t place a scintilla of credence in Hitchens’s attribution of this to “the happy couple,” given how remote the anecdote is from the source). You might have some doubts about whether Hillary Clinton is the best possible candidate here (I support Obama myself) but even if Bill’s policies do her some discredit they hardly seem disqualifying.

The third point is that “Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself” to which, fuck you, Madame Cleo. Fuck ten times a day and twenty on Sundays. Never mind your pathetic attempt to read Hillary Clinton’s mind — you’ve never shown the slightest lost sleep over your role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In fact, you’re quite proud of it. Of course there’s no shame and decency left in the world — Christopher Hitchens is living proof.

I actually don’t think Clinton lied about Tuzla. I mean, why would she lie about that when getting caught lying about it would be fairly obviously detrimental to her campaign? I have the feeling that she misremembered what happened twelve years ago, and became convinced that it was true. Presumably her aides had no reason to think she was wrong because they thought that a person wouldn’t get something like that wrong. But I gather that people have surprisingly unreliable memories about things like that.

Electing an hoest human being would be as fatal as electing a pacifist.

An hoest human being? Would that be a cross between Homo sapiens and Cercopithecus l’hoesti? Is this the new wingnut line about Obama?

Best elect McCain – definitely neither hoest nor honest nor a pacifist. Vote McCain and give Europe a chance!

What Matt Weiner and questioner said. Clinton isn’t my first choice for President either, but line her up with the various major-party candidates of the past 20 or 30 years and it’s absurd to say she’s especially dishonest, conscienceless or lacking knowledge of history. (And why Bertram calls her “la Clinton” I don’t know. Maybe he thinks people have forgotten she’s female.)

But the single anecdote that seemingly crystallizes, and in fact substitutes for, a substantive eargument, has been Hitchens’ metier since long before he changed ideological clothing.

“… must know that neither characteristic (lying, etc) has been an obstacle in the past.”

Who was it who pointed out that if the voters wanted honest politicians, how come they elect so many who aren’t?